35874 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

PART 72—LICENSING 

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 

INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT 

NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL 

RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND 

REACTOR-RELATED GREATER THAN 

CLASS C WASTE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 72 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 51, 53, 

57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 

187, 189, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 

2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 

2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 

2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act secs. 

201, 202, 206, 211 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 

5846, 5851); National Environmental Policy 

Act sec. 102 (42 U.S.C. 4332); Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, 

148 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 

10157, 10161, 10168); Government 

Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 1704 (44 

U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act of 2005, 

Pub. L. 109–58, 119 Stat. 788 (2005). 

Section 72.44(g) also issued under Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d) 

(42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). 

Section 72.46 also issued under Atomic 

Energy Act sec. 189 (42 U.S.C. 2239); Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act sec. 134 (42 U.S.C. 10154). 

Section 72.96(d) also issued under Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act sec. 145(g) (42 U.S.C. 

10165(g)). 

Subpart J also issued under Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act secs. 117(a), 141(h) (42 U.S.C. 

10137(a), 10161(h)). 

Subpart K also issued under Nuclear Waste 

Policy Act sec. 218(a) (42 U.S.C. 10198). 

■ 2. In § 72.214, Certificate of 

Compliance No. 1040 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 72.214 List of approved spent fuel 

storage casks. 

* * * * * 

Certificate Number: 1040. 

Initial Certificate Effective Date: April 

6, 2015. 

Amendment No. 1 Effective Date: 

September 8, 2015. 

SAR Submitted by: Holtec 

International, Inc. 

SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis 

Report for the Holtec International HI– 

STORM UMAX Canister Storage 

System. 

Docket Number: 72–1040. 

Certificate Expiration Date: April 6, 

2035. 

Model Number: MPC–37, MPC–89. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day 

of June, 2015. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mark A. Satorius, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2015–15474 Filed 6–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–TP–0055] 

RIN 1904–AD41 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Commercial Prerinse 

Spray Valves 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes to amend the 

test procedures for commercial prerinse 

spray valves to consider the latest 

version of the industry standard that is 

incorporated by reference and to 

consider a procedure for measuring the 

spray force. DOE also proposes to revise 

the definition of commercial prerinse 

spray valve and the current test 

procedure as they relate to various spray 

valves currently on the market, 

including those with multiple spray 

patterns. DOE does not believe the 

proposed changes will affect the 

measured water use. As part of this 

proposal, DOE is announcing a public 

meeting to collect comments and data 

on its proposal. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

on Tuesday, July 28, 2015 from 9:00 

a.m. to 12:00 p.m., in Washington, DC. 

The meeting will also be broadcast as a 

webinar. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for instructions and 

information concerning meeting 

attendance and webinar participation. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rulemaking before and after the public 

meeting, but no later than September 8, 

2015. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for test procedures 

for commercial prerinse spray valves, 

and provide docket number EERE– 

2014–BT–TP–0055 and/or Regulation 

Identifier Number (RIN) number 1904– 

AD41. Comments may be submitted 

using any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: SprayValves2014TP0055@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disk (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

product.aspx/productid/54. This Web 

page will contain a link to the docket for 

this notice on the www.regulations.gov 

site. The www.regulations.gov Web page 

will contain simple instructions on how 

to access all documents, including 

public comments, in the docket. See 

section V for information on how to 

submit comments through 

regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email: 

jim.raba@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Johanna Hariharan, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email: 

Johanna.Hariharan@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information about how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 35875 

1All references to EPCA refer to the statute as 

amended through the American Energy 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (December 18, 

2012). 

2Because Congress included CPSV in Part A of 

Title III of EPCA, the consumer product provisions 

of Part A (not the industrial equipment provisions 

of Part A–1) apply to commercial prerinse spray 

valves. However, because commercial prerinse 

spray valves are more commonly considered to be 

commercial equipment, as a matter of 

administrative convenience and to minimize 

confusion among interested parties, DOE adopted 

CPSV provisions into subpart O of 10 CFR part 431 

[71 FR 71340, 71374 (Dec. 8, 2006)]. Part 431 

contains DOE regulations for commercial and 

industrial equipment. The location of provisions 

within the CFR does not affect either their 

substance or applicable procedure, and DOE refers 

to CPSV as either ‘‘products’’ or ‘‘equipment.’’ 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

intends to incorporate by reference the 

following industry standards into 10 

CFR part 431: ASTM Standard F2324– 

13, (‘‘ASTM F2324–13’’), ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves’’, 

approved June 1, 2013. 

Copies of ASTM Standard F2324–13 

can be obtained from ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 

West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or by 

going to http://www.astm.org/Standard/ 

standards-and-publications.html. 

For further discussion of this 

standard, see III.B and IV.M of this 

proposed rule. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Definitions 

1. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve 

2. Normally-Closed Valve 

3. Spray Force 

B. Industry Standards Incorporated by 

Reference 

C. Proposed Additional Test Methods 

1. Adding Test Method To Measure Spray 

Force 

2. Multiple Spray Patterns: Adding a 

Requirement To Measure Flow Rate and 

Spray Force of Each Spray Pattern 

D. Rounding Requirements 

1. Flow Rate 

2. Spray Force 

E. Certification, Compliance, and 

Enforcement 

1. Selection of Units to Test 

2. Representative Value Formula 

F. Effective and Compliance Date 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statement for Distribution 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) sets 

forth a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency.1 Part B of 

title III, which for editorial reasons was 

redesignated as Part A upon 

incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified), 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.’’ The Energy Policy 

Act of 2005, Public Law 109–58 (August 

8, 2005) amended EPCA to add ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Standards For Additional 

Products,’’ which includes commercial 

prerinse spray valves (CPSV), and 

provided the definitions under 42 

U.S.C. 6291(33), test procedures under 

42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(14), and energy 

conservation standards for flow rate 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(dd). 

Under EPCA, this program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) Federal energy and water 

conservation standards, and (4) 

compliance certification and 

enforcement procedures. The testing 

requirements consist of test procedures 

that manufacturers of covered products 

must use as the basis for (1) certifying 

to DOE that their products comply with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 

making representations about the 

efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c), 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE uses 

these test procedures to determine 

compliance with relevant standards 

established under EPCA.2

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

criteria and procedures that DOE is 

required to follow when prescribing or 

amending test procedures for covered 

products. EPCA provides in relevant 

part that any test procedures prescribed 

or amended under this section shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use and shall not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

In addition, if DOE determines that a 

test procedure amendment is warranted, 

it must publish proposed test 

procedures and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

comments. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) 

Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a 

test procedure, EPCA requires DOE to 

determine to what extent, if any, the 

proposed test procedure would alter the 

measured energy efficiency of any 

covered product as determined under 

the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency of a covered 

product, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) 

EPCA, as amended, sets forth the 

current maximum flow rate of not more 

than 1.6 gallons per minute for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(dd)) EPCA also requires 

DOE to use the American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard 

F2324 as a basis for the test procedure 

for measuring flow rate. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(14)) 

In the December 8, 2006 final rule, 

DOE incorporated by reference ASTM 

Standard F2324–03 into regulatory text 

(10 CFR 431.263), and prescribed it as 

the uniform test method to measure 

flow rate of commercial prerinse spray 

valves under 10 CFR 431.264. 71 FR 

71340, 71374. Later, on October 23, 

2013, DOE incorporated by reference 

ASTM Standard F2324–03 (2009) for 

testing commercial prerinse spray 

valves, which updated the 2003 version. 

78 FR 62970, 62980. 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR), DOE proposes to update 10 

CFR 431.264, ‘‘Uniform test method for 

the measurement of flow rate for 

commercial prerinse spray valves,’’ as 

follows: 

(1) Incorporate by reference certain 

provisions (sections: 6.1–6.9, 9.1– 

9.5.3.2, 10.1–10.2.5, 10.3.1–10.3.8, and 

11.3.1) of the current revision to the 

applicable industry standard—ASTM 

Standard F2324–13, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Prerinse Spray Valves’’— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

35876 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

3See Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of 

Framework document, 79 FR 54213 (Sept. 11, 

2014). See also Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD– 

0027, Framework document, No. 1, available at 

www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=

0900006481864b06&disposition=

attachment&contentType=pdf (hereinafter 

‘‘Framework document’’). 

pertaining to flow rate and spray force 

measurement; 

(2) Modify the current definition of 

the term ‘‘commercial prerinse spray 

valve,’’ and add definitions for the terms 

‘‘normally-closed valve’’ and ‘‘spray 

force;’’ 

(3) Modify the current test method for 

measuring flow rate to reference 

sections 10.1–10.2.5 and 11.3.1 of 

ASTM Standard F2324–13; 

(4) Add a test method for measuring 

spray force that references sections 

10.3.1–10.3.8 of ASTM Standard F2324– 

13; 

(5) Add a requirement for measuring 

flow rate and spray force of each spray 

pattern for commercial prerinse spray 

valves with multiple spray patterns; 

(6) Modify the rounding requirement 

for flow rate measurement and specify 

the rounding requirement for spray 

force measurement; and 

(7) Modify the current CPSV sampling 

requirements to remove the provisions 

related to determining represented 

values where consumers would favor 

higher values. 

DOE’s proposed actions are addressed 

in detail in section III of this NOPR. 

III. Discussion 

The following sections focus on 

DOE’s proposed changes to the test 

procedure, including definitions, 

industry standards incorporated by 

reference, modifications to the test 

procedure, additional test 

measurements, rounding requirements, 

and certification and compliance 

requirements. 

A. Definitions 

In this document, DOE proposes to 

amend the existing definition for 

commercial prerinse spray valve and 

add definitions for the terms ‘‘normally 

closed valve’’ and ‘‘spray force.’’ A 

detailed discussion of these terms 

follows. 

1. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve 

According to EPCA, a commercial 

prerinse spray valve is a handheld 

device designed and marketed for use 

with commercial dishwashing and ware 

washing equipment that sprays water on 

dishes, flatware, and other food service 

items for the purpose of removing food 

residue before cleaning the items. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(33)(A), 10 CFR 431.262) 

EPCA allows DOE to modify the CPSV 

definition to include products: (1) That 

are used extensively in conjunction 

with commercial dishwashing and ware 

washing equipment; (2) to which the 

application of standards would result in 

significant energy savings; and (3) to 

which the application of standards 

would not be likely to result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type currently available on the market. 

42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(B) EPCA also allows 

DOE to modify the CPSV definition to 

exclude products: (1) That are used for 

special food service applications; (2) 

that are unlikely to be widely used in 

conjunction with commercial 

dishwashing and ware washing 

equipment; and (3) to which the 

application of standards would not 

result in significant energy savings. 

As a companion to this test procedure 

rulemaking, on September 11, 2014, 

DOE published in the Federal Register 

a notice of public meeting and 

availability of the Framework document 

to initiate a rulemaking to consider 

amending the energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 79 FR 54213 (Sept. 11, 2014).3 In 

the Framework document, DOE 

explained that it was considering 

modifying the CPSV definition to 

change the scope of the products subject 

to regulation. (Framework document, 

pp. 2–3) DOE received several 

comments in response to the Framework 

document about potential modifications 

to the current CPSV definition. 

Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) 

commented that prerinse spray valves 

are used in non-prerinse activities (e.g., 

supermarket vegetable displays, pet 

grooming, etc.), and suggested that nonprerinse applications be considered 

separately from the current CPSV 

rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE–2014– 

BT–STD–0027, AWE, No. 8 at p. 2) 

Similarly, T&S Brass and Bronze Works, 

Inc. (T&S Brass) commented that the 

CPSV definition should remain specific 

to the commercial applications 

currently defined, noting that similar 

equipment used in non-CPSV 

applications may not satisfy CPSV 

performance requirements. (Docket No. 

EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027, T&S Brass, 

No. 12 at p. 2) As discussed in the 

following paragraphs, DOE is proposing 

to modify the CPSV definition to 

redefine the scope of coverage for 

equipment used in conjunction with 

commercial dishwashing and ware 

washing, as authorized under 42 U.S.C. 

6291(33)(B). 

EPCA’s definition includes three key 

elements: ‘‘a handheld device,’’ ‘‘sprays 

water,’’ and ‘‘purpose of removing food 

residue.’’ Consider a commercial 

dishwasher, which might spray water 

on items that are placed inside for the 

purpose of removing food residue. This 

would not be covered under this 

definition because it is not a handheld 

device. Only a handheld device that 

sprays water for the purpose of 

removing food residue before cleaning 

the items would be covered. 

DOE has observed the existence of 

products distributed in U.S. commerce 

with brochures describing them as 

‘‘prerinse spray’’ or ‘‘prerinse spray 

valve,’’ and that are marketed (often by 

third parties) to rinse dishes before 

washing, to make a difference in 

washing dirty dishes, to pre-rinse items 

in a dish room in preparation for 

running them through a commercial 

dishwasher, or to be used with pre-rinse 

assemblies and/or as ware washing 

equipment. DOE has also observed 

products marketed as ‘‘pull-down 

kitchen faucet’’ or ‘‘commercial style 

prerinse,’’ which generally speaking are 

handheld devices that can be used for 

commercial dishwashing or ware 

washing regardless of installation 

location. DOE proposes to modify the 

definition such that these categories of 

products would meet the definition of 

commercial prerinse spray valve and 

would be subject to the associated 

regulations. Installation location is not a 

factor in determining whether a given 

model meets the definition of 

commercial prerinse spray valve. 

Although DOE understands that 

manufacturers may market different 

categories of prerinse spray valves for 

various uses such as cleaning floors or 

walls or filling glasses, DOE proposes 

that any such device that is suitable for 

use in conjunction with commercial 

dishwashing and ware washing 

equipment to spray water for the 

purpose of removing food residue, falls 

within the CPSV definition. This also 

includes commercial prerinse spray 

valves with multiple spray patterns. 

However, spray valves used only for 

other purposes, such as spray valves 

designed and marketed for use only in 

cleaning custodial materials or washing 

walls and floors would not be covered 

under the definition of commercial 

prerinse spray valves, if they are not 

suitable for using in conjunction with 

dishwashing or ware washing 

equipment to remove food residue. 

Therefore, after reviewing the current 

CPSV definition and products currently 

being distributed in the market as 

appropriate for dishwashing and ware 

washing applications, DOE is proposing 

to replace the phrase ‘‘designed and 

marketed for use’’ with the phrase 

‘‘suitable for use.’’ DOE believes 

products that are intended for and/or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 35877 

4The analyses of the energy savings potential of 

standards and the impact of standards on the 

availability of any covered product type currently 

on the market are being conducted as part of DOE’s 

concurrent energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for commercial prerinse spray valves. 

actually are used to remove food residue 

in dishwashing and ware washing 

applications should be subject to DOE 

standards and certification requirements 

even if they are marketed without the 

term ‘‘commercial dishwashing and 

ware washing equipment.’’ 

DOE also reviewed the prerinse spray 

valve definition in ASTM Standard 

F2324–13, which defines the term 

‘‘prerinse spray valve’’ as ‘‘a handheld 

device containing a release to close 

mechanism [sic] that is used to spray 

water on dishes, flatware, etc.’’ DOE 

believes that the ‘‘release-to-close’’ 

mechanism included in the ASTM 

definition means a manually actuated, 

normally closed valve. DOE believes 

that this is a typical feature of 

commercial prerinse spray valves. DOE 

has considered whether to include this 

feature in the definition or whether this 

would then create a market-incentive to 

create commercial prerinse spray valves 

that do not normally, fully, close. If DOE 

were to include this feature in the 

definition, DOE prefers the term 

‘‘normally closed,’’ because it refers to 

a physical characteristic of the internal 

valve within a CPSV, which is intrinsic 

to its operation; whereas, ‘‘release-toclose’’ refers to a manual action required 

to operate a CPSV, which could create 

ambiguity when considering a CPSV 

with an atypical design for manually 

activating the spray valve. Therefore, 

DOE, in the alternative, proposes to 

include the term ‘‘normally closed’’ in 

an amended CPSV definition. 

In summary, DOE proposes to define 

‘‘commercial prerinse spray valve’’ as ‘‘a 

handheld device suitable for use with 

commercial dishwashing and ware 

washing equipment for the purpose of 

removing food residue before cleaning 

the items.’’ In the alternative, DOE 

would consider defining ‘‘commercial 

prerinse spray valve’’ as ‘‘a handheld 

device containing a normally closed 

valve that is suitable for use with 

commercial dishwashing and ware 

washing equipment for the purpose of 

removing food residue before cleaning 

the items.’’ 

DOE preliminarily concludes that this 

proposed definition would satisfy the 

requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(B) 

because (1) the products covered by this 

definition are used extensively in 

conjunction with commercial 

dishwashing and ware washing 

equipment; (2) the application of 

standards to such products would result 

in significant energy savings; and (3) the 

application of standards to such 

products would not be likely to result in 

the unavailability of any covered 

product type currently available on the 

market.4 To the extent that the 

definition change would change the 

scope of products subject to standards, 

DOE proposes that any products that 

would be newly within the scope of 

coverage would be subject to standards 

concurrent with the compliance date of 

any standards established or revised in 

the companion standards rulemaking 

proceeding currently underway. DOE 

seeks comment on the potential for an 

expanded scope of coverage resulting 

from this proposed definition and, 

should DOE determine that additional 

products would be subject to standards, 

DOE would include regulatory text in a 

final rule in this proceeding making 

clear that expanded scope and the 

future compliance date. 

DOE invites comments from 

interested parties about this proposed 

definition. See section V.E.1.a of this 

NOPR. 

2. Normally-Closed Valve 

If DOE were to adopt a definition of 

commercial prerinse spray valve that 

included the term ‘‘normally-closed 

valve,’’ DOE would also add a definition 

of the term ‘‘normally-closed valve.’’ In 

the ASTM Standard F2324–13 

definition of a commercial prerinse 

spray valve, the phrase ‘‘. . .containing 

a release to close mechanism. . .’’ is 

included. DOE believes that a release to 

close mechanism is a common feature of 

commercial prerinse spray valves that is 

better described by the term ‘‘normallyclosed valve.’’ Unlike the term ‘‘releaseto-close,’’ the term ‘‘normally-closed 

valve’’ is more commonly used in 

hydraulic engineering and characterizes 

the valve itself, rather than the actuation 

mechanism. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to define 

‘‘normally-closed valve’’ as ‘‘a valve that 

opens when an external force is exerted 

upon it and automatically closes when 

the external force is removed.’’ 

DOE invites comments about the 

proposed definition. See section V.E.1.b 

of this NOPR. 

3. Spray Force 

In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to 

add a definition for the term ‘‘spray 

force.’’ Currently, all commercial 

prerinse spray valves belong to one 

product class and are subject to a single 

standard. (10 CFR 431.266) As part of 

the ongoing CPSV standards rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD– 

0027), DOE is considering whether to 

retain the single product class or to 

establish separate product classes, in 

view of the statutory criteria in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and (q). (Framework 

document, pp. 17–18) 

In particular, DOE is considering 

using spray force to delineate potential 

product classes when proposing flow 

rate standards. As addressed earlier, 

DOE proposes to incorporate by 

reference ASTM Standard F2324–13, 

which prescribes a test method for 

measuring spray force. 

ASTM Standard F2324–13 amends 

ASTM Standard F2324–03 (2009), in 

part, by replacing the cleanability test 

with a spray force test. As previously 

mentioned, DOE proposes in this NOPR 

to incorporate by reference ASTM 

Standard F2324–13 and to add spray 

force testing to the test procedure both 

to be consistent with current industry 

practice and support potential amended 

CPSV standards. The term ‘‘spray force’’ 

is defined in ASTM Standard F2324–13 

as ‘‘the amount of force exerted onto the 

spray disc.’’ DOE proposes to adopt this 

definition. Water measurements for 

force typically use kilogram-force. 

However, kilograms are not a common 

unit of measurement in the United 

States and are too large for the spray 

force exerted by a CPSV. In addition, 

ASTM Standard F2324 uses ounceforce. Thus, DOE proposes to specify 

this measurement unit. 

DOE invites comments about the 

proposed definition. See section V.E.1.c 

of this NOPR. 

B. Industry Standards Incorporated by 

Reference 

EPCA prescribes that the test 

procedure for measuring flow rate for 

commercial prerinse spray valves be 

based on ASTM Standard F2324, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Pre-Rinse 

Spray Valves.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(14)) 

Pursuant to this statutory requirement, 

DOE incorporated by reference ASTM 

Standard F2324–03 in a final rule 

published on December 8, 2006. 71 FR 

71340, 71374. DOE last updated its 

CPSV test procedure to reference the 

updated ASTM Standard F2324–03 

(2009) in a final rule published on 

October 23, 2013. 78 FR 62970, 62980. 

EPCA directs the Secretary of Energy 

to review test procedures for all covered 

products at least once every 7 years, and 

either to (1) amend a test procedure if 

the Secretary determines that the 

amended test procedure would more 

accurately or fully produce test results 

which measure energy efficiency, 

energy use, water use, or estimated 

annual operating cost during a 

representative average use cycle, and 

shall not be unduly burdensome to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

35878 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

5EPA WaterSense program, September 19, 2013. 

WaterSense Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse 

Spray Valves Supporting Statement, Version 1.0. 

(see: www.epa.gov/watersense/partners/prsv_

final.html). 

6The cleanability test and its results were not 

repeatable and reproducible. There also was low 

user satisfaction with valves that scored well on the 

cleanability test. Users indicated that spray force 

may be a better metric for assessing product 

effectiveness. 

7A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray valves 

(Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027), which is 

maintained at www.regulations.gov. This notation 

indicates that the statement preceding the reference 

is document number 11 in the docket for the CPSV 

energy conservation standards rulemaking, and 

appears at page 2 of that document. 

8Friedman et.al. 2010. Criteria for Optimized 

Distribution Systems. Water Research Foundation. 

Denver, CO. 

9 International Association of Plumbing and 

Mechanical Officials. Uniform Plumbing Code. 

2012. Ontario, Canada. 

10U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) WaterSense Program. Pre-Rinse Spray 

Valves Field Study Report. 2011. pp. 16–17. http:// 

www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_

study_report_033111v2_508.pdf. 

conduct; or (2) publish a notice in the 

Federal Register of any determination 

not to amend a test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) 

In 2013, ASTM amended Standard 

F2324–03 (2009) to replace the 

cleanability test with a spray force test, 

based on research conducted by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) WaterSense® program.5 Where 

the cleanability test evaluated cleaning 

time of a standard dinner plate, the 

current ASTM Standard F2324–13 

prescribes spray force, measured in 

ounce-force (ozf).6 In addition, where 

ASTM Standard F2324–03 (2009) 

required measuring the prerinse spray 

valve flow rate at water pressures of 

both 60 ± 1 pounds per square inch (psi) 

and 60 ± 2 psi (in sections 4.2 and 

10.2.2, respectively), ASTM Standard 

F2324–13 requires measuring 

commercial prerinse spray valve flow 

rate only at 60 ± 2 psi. 

In that rulemaking, DOE received a 

number of comments related to the test 

procedure in response to the September 

2014 Framework document. A joint 

comment submitted by the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

(ASAP), and Alliance to Save Energy 

(ASE) (collectively referred to as 

‘‘Advocates’’) expressed concern that 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

designed ‘‘to the test’’ to meet efficiency 

standards at 60 psi may perform below 

user expectations at locations where 

only 40 or 35 psi is available. (Docket 

No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027, 

Advocates, No. 11 at p. 2) 7 Similarly, 

AWE suggested that 50 percent of all 

DOE testing of commercial prerinse 

spray valves be conducted on food 

service installations, to account for 

various supply pressures. (Docket No. 

EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027, AWE, No. 8 

at p. 4). Nevertheless, AWE also 

supported use of the ASTM Standard 

F2324–13 test procedure and testing at 

a supply pressure of 60 psi. (Docket No. 

EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027, AWE, No. 8 

at p. 2) 

DOE understands that supply 

pressures vary across the country. Some 

pressures are lower and some are higher 

than the 60 psi test pressure prescribed 

in ASTM Standard F2324–13. Limited 

research by DOE suggests that supply 

pressures vary at the municipal level 

across the nation, and at the facility 

level within a building. Typical range of 

acceptable water pressure is between 35 

psi to 80 psi.8 9 DOE also notes that 

facilities in a field study conducted by 

WaterSense in support of their 

specification for commercial prerinse 

spray valves showed a pressure range 

between 38 psi and 83 psi.10

DOE understands that supply 

pressures affect the flow rate of a 

commercial prerinse spray valve once 

installed. Typically, lower pressures 

result in lower flow rates of the 

commercial prerinse spray valves, and 

higher pressures result in higher flow 

rates. Nevertheless, testing at a single 

specific supply pressure to demonstrate 

compliance with the maximum 

allowable flow rate would enable a user 

to compare different commercial 

prerinse spray valves at this pressure, 

thus reducing testing burden. DOE has 

also reviewed the American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Standard 

A112.18.1–2012, ‘‘Plumbing Supply 

Fittings,’’ which contains testing 

parameters for other plumbing products, 

such as faucets and showerheads, and 

found that it requires testing at lower 

supply pressures only when 

determining a minimum flow rate. In 

contrast, ASTM Standard F2324–13 

prescribes the commercial prerinse 

spray valve flow rate to be measured at 

a supply pressure of 60 ± 2 psi to 

determine only the maximum flow rate. 

DOE proposes to test commercial 

prerinse spray valves at a flowing 

supply pressure of 60 ± 2 psi, as 

required by ASTM Standard F2324–13. 

DOE has also identified other 

differences between ASTM Standard 

F2324–03 (2009) and ASTM Standard 

F2324–13, which include: (1) Minimum 

flow rate of flex tubing, (2) water 

temperature for testing, and (3) length of 

water pipe required to be insulated. 

Table III.1 summarizes changes between 

ASTM Standard F2324–03 (2009) and 

2013 that apply to DOE’s test procedure. 

TABLE III.1—CHANGES TO ASTM STANDARD F2324 

ASTM Standard F2324–2003 (2009) ASTM Standard 

F2324–2013 

Flow rate of flex tubing ........... 7 gpm ...................................................................................................................................... 3.5 gpm. 

Water temperature for testing 120 ± 4 °F ............................................................................................................................... 60 ± 10 °F. 

Length of water pipe to be insulated.Any insulation to have a thermal resistance (R) of 4 °F × ft 2 × h/Btu for the entire length 

of the water pipe, from the mixing valve to the inlet of the flex tubing.

No requirement. 

Section 9.1 of ASTM Standard F2324– 

13 reduced the minimum required flow 

rate of the flex tubing when no 

commercial prerinse spray valve is 

connected from 7 gpm to 3.5 gpm. 

ASTM Standard F2324–13 includes a 

note (#3) that a minimum flow rate for 

the tubing is specified to prevent the 

flexible tubing from dictating the flow 

rate of the prerinse spray valve. The 

required flow rate for commercial 

prerinse spray valves under 10 CFR 

431.266 is less than the flow rate of the 

flex tubing specified in the ASTM 

standards. Therefore, because the test 

procedure measures the flow rate of the 

commercial prerinse spray valve, which 

is connected after the tubing, the flow 

rate of the tubing should not affect the 

measurement of the flow rate of the 

commercial prerinse spray valve. DOE 

believes that the flex tubing flow rate 

change from 7 gpm to 3.5 gpm (ATSM 

Standard F2324–2003 (2009) and 2013, 

respectively) will have no effect on the 

measured water consumption under the 

DOE test procedure. Accordingly, DOE 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 35879 

11EPA WaterSense. Response to Public 

Comments Received on February 2013 WaterSense 

Draft Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray 

Valves, 5–7. September 19, 2013. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency http://

www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/prsv_finalspec_

publiccommentresponse_09.19.13_final_508.pdf 

(accessed May. 20, 2015). 

12EPA WaterSense. Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Field 

Study Report, pages 24–25. March 31, 2011. United 

States Environmental Protection Agency 

www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_

study_report_033111v2_508.pdf (accessed Oct. 31, 

2014). 

proposes to adopt section 9.1 of ASTM 

Standard F2324–13 for a 3.5 gpm flow 

rate for flex tubing when not connected 

to the CPSV. 

ASTM Standard F2324–03 (2009) 

required the water temperature for 

testing to be 120 ± 4 °F. ASTM Standard 

F2324–13 reduces to 60 °F with an 

increased tolerance of ± 10 °F. DOE 

believes that this difference may reflect 

removal of the cleanability test because 

water temperature affects cleanability 

under the old approach/standard but 

not measuring force under the new 

approach/standard. DOE’s research 

indicates that measurements of flow rate 

and spray force will be the same under 

either water temperature. Because the 

temperature will not affect these 

measurements, DOE proposes to 

incorporate the temperature 

requirements from ASTM Standard 

F2324–13 (section 10.2.2) into the DOE 

test procedure for commercial prerinse 

spray valves. 

Additionally, ASTM Standard F2324– 

13 removes the ASTM Standard F2324– 

03 (2009) requirement for any insulation 

to have a thermal resistance (R) of 4 °F 

× ft2 × h/Btu for the entire length of the 

water pipe, from the mixing valve to the 

inlet of the flex tubing. ASTM Standard 

F2324–03 required using 120 °F water; 

however, ASTM Standard F2324–13 

requires using 60 °F water. DOE believes 

ASTM removed the insulation 

requirement in 2013 in conjunction 

with the water temperature reduction 

because the insulation is unnecessary 

when the test water temperature is 60 

°F. Insulating the water pipe from the 

mixing valve to the inlet of the flex 

tubing is not required with 60 °F water 

because the water is below room 

temperature. DOE believes that 

removing the requirement to insulate 

the water pipe will have no effect on the 

measurement of either the flow rate or 

spray force because insulation only 

affects temperature, not water flow rate. 

DOE thus proposes to adopt the change 

not to require insulation. 

Finally, Section 4.1 Summary of Test 

Method, of ASTM Standard F2324–13 

states, ‘‘If the measured flow rate is not 

within 5 percent of the rated flow rate, 

all further testing ceases and the 

manufacturer is contacted. The 

manufacturer may make appropriate 

changes or adjustments to the prerinse 

spray valve.’’ DOE notes that it is not 

incorporating this section of ASTM 

Standard F2324–13 into the DOE test 

procedure. 

In view of all the above, to align with 

current industry practice and to be 

consistent with test procedure 

requirements under EPCA, DOE 

proposes to incorporate by reference the 

following sections of ASTM Standard 

F2324–13: 6.1–6.9, 9.1–9.5.3.2, 10.1– 

10.2.5, 10.3.1–10.3.8, and 11.3.1 

(replacing the plural ‘‘nozzles’’ with 

‘‘nozzle’’), and excluding references to 

the ‘‘Annex.’’ When ASTM Standard 

F2324–03 (2009) was updated to the 

current 2013 version, certain sections 

for measuring flow rate were 

renumbered. To reflect this 

renumbering, DOE is proposing to 

update the current flow rate test method 

to reference the appropriate sections of 

ASTM Standard F2324–13. The 

referenced sections describe the testing 

apparatus, test method, and calculations 

pertaining to flow-rate measurement. 

C. Proposed Additional Test Methods 

1. Adding Test Method To Measure 

Spray Force 

As described previously, ASTM 

Standard F2324–13 includes a test for 

measuring the spray force of a 

commercial prerinse spray valve. The 

test is conducted by mounting a 10-inch 

rigid disc to a force gauge, located eight 

inches from the prerinse spray valve, as 

shown in Figure 4 in section 9.5.2 of 

ASTM Standard F2324–13. The plate is 

mounted in a vertical orientation 

parallel to the face of the commercial 

prerinse spray valve. After water flow is 

initiated, the water exits the commercial 

prerinse spray valve and strikes the 

disc, creating a force on the disc, which 

in turn depresses the force gauge. The 

average force gauge measurement over a 

15-second period is recorded. 

During the September 30, 2014 

Framework public meeting regarding 

the energy conservation standards for 

commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE 

invited comment on using spray force as 

a potential characteristic by which to 

separate product classes (Framework 

document, pp.17–18; Docket No. EERE– 

2014–BT–STD–0027, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 6 at p.38). DOE also 

invited comments about an alternative 

metric for spray force, gallons per 

minute divided by ounce-force (gpm/

ozf). (Framework Document, p. 3) 

Comments from interested parties 

during the Framework public meeting, 

comments submitted to the EPA 

WaterSense program, and other research 

by DOE indicate that spray force is an 

important characteristic in defining the 

performance of a commercial prerinse 

spray valve because it relates to the 

product’s application and user 

satisfaction. During the Framework 

public meeting, T&S Brass stated that 

the maximum technologically feasible 

model (max-tech model) performance 

should not be evaluated solely based on 

flow rate, but should include at least 

one other variable. T&S Brass 

mentioned that, depending on 

application, spray force is a 

characteristic that is considered when 

determining commercial prerinse spray 

valve performance. (Docket No. EERE– 

2014–BT–STD–0027, T&S Brass, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 6 at p.52) 

DOE also found through research that 

spray force is related to the utility of 

commercial prerinse spray valves.11 For 

example, a high spray force is required 

to clean heavy stains, such as baked-on 

foods, from silverware, dishes, pots, and 

pans. By contrast, a commercial prerinse 

spray valve with lower spray force may 

be sufficient for food service 

establishments where baked-on foods 

are less common. T&S Brass stated that 

applications of commercial prerinse 

spray valves range from light rinsing to 

heavy-duty cleaning. Heavy-duty 

cleaning applications require more 

spray force than light rinsing. (Docket 

No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027, T&S 

Brass, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 6 

at p. 40–41) 

Spray force also is important because 

a WaterSense field study found that low 

water pressure, or spray force, is a 

source of user dissatisfaction. 

WaterSense evaluated 14 commercial 

prerinse spray valve models and 

collected 56 customer satisfaction 

reviews, of which nine were 

unsatisfactory. Seven of the nine 

unsatisfactory scores were attributed, 

among other factors, to the pressure 

(here, the subjective, user-perceived 

force) of the spray.12 DOE, however, 

proposes to measure spray force 

objectively, as in ASTM Standard 

F2324–13. 

In summary, spray force is a 

characteristic essential to evaluating the 

performance of commercial prerinse 

spray valves because there is a 

relationship between spray force and 

both the application of a commercial 

prerinse spray valve and user 

satisfaction. As a result, DOE proposes 

to incorporate by reference the spray 

force test method contained in sections 

10.3.1–10.3.8 of ASTM Standard F2324– 

14 into the DOE commercial prerinse 

spray valve test procedure. DOE seeks 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

35880 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

13 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA’s) WaterSense program, September 9, 2013. 

WaterSense Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse 

Spray Valves Supporting Statement, Version 1.0. 

comment on the addition of the spray 

force test method. See section V.E.2 of 

this NOPR. 

2. Multiple Spray Patterns: Adding a 

Requirement To Measure Flow Rate and 

Spray Force of Each Spray Pattern 

DOE has identified several 

commercial prerinse spray valves on the 

market with multiple spray patterns. On 

average, these prerinse spray valves 

provide up to three spray patterns. 

DOE’s research showed a maximum 

number of five spray patterns for 

commercial prerinse spray valves. Each 

spray pattern is obtained by turning the 

adjustable spray head to select one of 

the available spray patterns at a time. 

For these commercial prerinse spray 

valves, each spray pattern can be used 

in distinct prerinsing applications. The 

applications range from washing off 

baked-on food to light washing, as each 

spray pattern can provide different flow 

rates and spray forces. 

Because a commercial prerinse spray 

valve with multiple spray patterns can 

give different flow rates and spray 

forces, DOE proposes to test each spray 

pattern using the flow rate and spray 

force test methods described in sections 

III.B and III.C.1, respectively. 

Additionally, section 10.3.7 from ASTM 

Standard F2324–13, which is 

incorporated by reference in this NOPR, 

also specifies that force shall be tested 

for each mode (i.e. spray pattern). DOE 

seeks comment about whether 

manufacturers should be required to test 

commercial prerinse spray valves with 

multiple spray patterns in all spray 

pattern modes. See section V.E.3 of this 

NOPR. 

D. Rounding Requirements 

1. Flow Rate 

DOE proposes to change the rounding 

requirements for recording flow rate 

measurements from one decimal place 

to two decimal places. Currently, 10 

CFR 431.264(b) requires rounding to one 

decimal place. However, the current 

WaterSense standard for commercial 

prerinse spray valves is rounded to two 

decimal places (1.28 gpm).13 DOE 

believes that rounding to one decimal 

place is insufficiently precise for the 

low magnitude flow rate measurements 

that may be needed for the forthcoming 

energy conservation standard. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to amend the 

flow rate measurement rounding 

requirements to two decimal places. 

2. Spray Force 

Section 11.4.2 of the ASTM Standard 

F2324–13 specifies that the spray force 

is rounded to one decimal place. DOE 

proposes to adopt the same spray force 

rounding requirements (i.e., one 

decimal place) in newly created 10 CFR 

431.264(b)(2). 

DOE seeks comment about the 

proposed rounding requirements for 

flow rate and spray force. See section 

V.E.4 of this NOPR. 

E. Certification, Compliance, and 

Enforcement 

1. Selection of Units to Test 

DOE proposes to retain the existing 

CPSV sampling plan at 10 CFR 

429.51(a). CPSV testing is subject to 

DOE’s general certification regulations 

at 10 CFR 429.11. These require a 

manufacturer to randomly select and 

test a sample of sufficient size to ensure 

that the represented value of water 

consumption adequately represents 

performance of all of the units within 

the basic model, but no fewer than two 

units. 429.11(b). The purposes of these 

requirements are to achieve a realistic 

representation of the water consumption 

of the basic model and to mitigate the 

risk of noncompliance, without 

imposing undue test burden. 

Section 8.1 of ASTM Standard F2324– 

13 requires three representative 

production units to be selected for all 

performance testing. DOE is not 

proposing to adopt this requirement. 

DOE is only proposing to adopt the 

testing methodology (i.e., applicable to 

testing of a unit)—not the rating 

methodology (i.e., applicable to a basic 

model)—found in ASTM Standard 

F2324–13. Accordingly, where ASTM 

Standard F2324–13 references testing of 

multiple units, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the standard 

subject to the limitation that the DOE 

test procedure applies to testing of one 

unit in each sample set (e.g., product 

class). 

2. Representative Value Formula 

DOE proposes to revise the statistical 

methods for certification, compliance, 

and enforcement for commercial 

prerinse spray valves in 10 CFR 

429.51(a)(2). Currently, 10 CFR 

429.51(a)(2)(i) and (ii) provide that for 

any represented value of water 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values, 

the upper confidence level (UCL) is 

used and where consumers would favor 

higher values, the lower confidence 

limit (LCL) is used. Where the standard 

for commercial prerinse spray valves is 

expressed as a maximum rate of water 

consumption (gpm) rather than water 

efficiency, customers would favor a 

lower value. Therefore, the LCL formula 

in 10 CFR 429.51(a)(2)(ii) is 

unnecessary. DOE proposes to remove 

the LCL formula from the sampling plan 

for the selection of units for testing and 

retain only the provision for a UCL 

under 10 CFR 429.51(a)(2)(i). DOE seeks 

comment about amending 10 CFR 

429.51(a)(2)(ii) by removing the formula 

for LCL. See section V.E.5 of this NOPR. 

F. Effective and Compliance Date 

In view of the above, any amendments 

to the commercial prerinse spray valve 

test procedure, under 10 CFR 431.264, 

would become effective 30 days after 

the date of the final rule. 

Representations would be required to be 

based on the amended test procedure 

180 days after the effective date. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review by the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel. 

The potential burden on 

manufacturers related to commercial 

prerinse spray values has been analyzed 

in previous rules. The following 

analysis is informed by previous rules, 

but also includes additional analysis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 35881 

14The Certification Database is part of DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Management System. See 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ (last 

accessed November 10, 2014). 

15U.S. Small Business Administration Table of 

Small Business Size Standards Matched to North 

American Industry Classification System Codes. See 

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_

Standards_Table.pdf (last accessed February 13, 

2015). 

16U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 

Architecture and Engineering. www.bls.gov/ooh/

Architecture-and-Engineering/home.htm (last 

accessed November 4, 2014). 

17U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 

Construction and Extraction Occupations. 

www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/

home.htm (last accessed November 4, 2014). 

18Obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

News Release: Employer Cost For Employee 

Compensation—December 2012, December 2012. 

U.S. Department of Labor. www.bls.gov/

news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. 

19Additional benefits include paid leave, 

supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and 

savings, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment 

insurance, and workers compensation. 

20Basic model means all units of a given type of 

covered product (or class thereof) manufactured by 

one manufacturer, having the same primary energy 

source, and which have essentially identical 

Continued 

When the DOE test procedure was 

initially adopted in 2006, the test 

procedure was identical to ENERGY 

STAR’s test procedure. DOE stated in 

the 2006 test procedure final rule that 

many manufacturers had been 

redesigning the products covered under 

that final rule. These products were 

tested for compliance with existing 

voluntary performance standards such 

as ENERGY STAR program 

requirements, using industry-developed 

test procedures that were the basis for 

the test procedures in the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005). DOE stated 

that manufacturers would experience no 

additional burdens if DOE adopted the 

test procedure (ASTM Standard F2324– 

03) referenced in EPAct 2005. 71 FR 

71340, 71363 (Dec. 8, 2006). In the final 

rule that last updated DOE’s test 

procedure, DOE did not adopt any 

changes to the referenced test 

procedure, thus DOE determined that 

there was no incremental cost burden to 

manufacturers of commercial prerinse 

spray valves. 78 FR 62970, 62983 (Oct. 

23, 2013). Historically, when DOE has 

adopted the industry’s test procedure, it 

has not resulted in any incremental cost 

burden to manufacturers of commercial 

prerinse spray valves. 

For this proposed rule, DOE made 

inquiry into small business 

manufacturers of commercial prerinse 

spray valves. In its market assessment, 

DOE used public information to identify 

potential small manufacturers. DOE 

reviewed the Department of Energy 

Compliance Database, individual 

company Web sites, and various 

marketing research tools (e.g., Dun and 

Bradstreet reports, Manta) to create a list 

of companies that import or otherwise 

manufacture commercial prerinse spray 

valves covered by this rulemaking.14

DOE identified 11 distinct 

manufacturers of commercial prerinse 

spray valves—the smallest business had 

two employees and the largest had 237 

employees. 

In view of the collected data, DOE 

considered what manufacturers met the 

Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA’s) definition of the term ‘‘small 

business’’ as it relates to the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code 332919 (SBA sets 

the size standard of 500 or fewer 

employees),15 and to screen out (1) 

companies that do not offer commercial 

prerinse spray valves covered by this 

rulemaking, (2) do not meet the 

definition of the term ‘‘small business,’’ 

or (3) are foreign owned and operated. 

As a result of its review, DOE identified 

eight manufacturers that would be 

considered small businesses. The 

number of small businesses and the 

applicable NAICS code 332919 are 

consistent with the Certification, 

Compliance, and Enforcement final rule 

at 76 FR 12422, 12488 (March 7, 2011). 

Thus, DOE has determined that 

amending the test procedures under 10 

CFR 431.264 would have minimal, if 

any, effect on covered small businesses, 

and that an IRFA was not needed. 

Table IV.1 lists the eight small 

businesses covered by this proposed 

rulemaking, according to the number of 

employees. DOE estimated that the 

average revenue per small business is 

approximately $21 million and the 

combined total annual revenues 

associated with these small businesses 

is about $124 million. Further, DOE 

analyzed the CPSV industry to 

determine what manufacturers would be 

covered under a test procedure 

rulemaking, and determined that 8 of 

the 11 CPSV manufacturers, or 72 

percent, may qualify as a ‘‘small 

business’’ under SBA classification 

guidelines. 

TABLE IV.1—SMALL BUSINESS SIZE BY

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

Number of 

employees 

Number of 

small 

businesses 

Percentage 

of small 

businesses 

1–10 ................ 1 12 .5 

21–30 .............. 1 12 .5 

31–40 .............. 1 12 .5 

41–50 .............. 2 25 

61–70 .............. 1 12 .5 

101–150 .......... 2 25 

DOE estimated the labor burden 

associated with testing, in view of the 

2012 (most recent) median annual pay 

for (1) environmental engineering 

technicians ($45,350), (2) mechanical 

engineering technicians ($51,980), and 

(3) plumbers, pipefitters, and 

steamfitters ($49,140) for an average 

annual salary of $48,823.16 17 DOE 

divided the average by 1,920 hours per 

year (40 hours per week for 48 weeks 

per year) to develop an hourly rate of 

$25.43. DOE adjusted the hourly rate by 

31 percent to account for benefits, 

resulting in an estimated total hourly 

rate of $33.31.18 19 DOE used this hourly 

rate to assess the labor costs for testing 

units according to the proposed 

amendments to the test procedures. 

Currently, 10 CFR 431.264 prescribes 

measurements for a flow rate, but does 

not address testing flow rate for 

commercial prerinse spray valves with 

multiple spray patterns. Instead, it 

requires testing to be repeated three 

times for the same unit. As such, DOE 

believes that testing could be completed 

in less than an hour per commercial 

prerinse spray valve. To assess the 

potential burden of the proposed 

amended test procedures, DOE rounds 

the current duration for testing up to a 

whole hour, for cases where the testing 

technician needs to document the 

results or cannot allot his or her labor 

hours. In view of the foregoing, DOE 

believes that the current testing process 

costs, on average, are $66.62 for labor 

for a total of two basic models to meet 

the testing requirements of 10 CFR 

429.11 and 429.51. 

The proposed amendments to the test 

procedures include an additional test 

for spray force. DOE believes that the 

additional time required to test spray 

force is not significant but, 

understandably, the number of spray 

patterns could potentially increase any 

testing time. DOE’s review of 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

yielded an average of three patterns per 

commercial prerinse spray valve. DOE 

estimates that the time to measure both 

flow rate and spray force for all three 

spray patterns to be greater than one 

hour but typically less than two hours. 

DOE again presumes that testing staff 

may not easily apportion their testing 

time between product, and rounds the 

total testing time to two hours per unit 

tested. Thus, DOE estimates the total 

labor time to test for two basic models 

of commercial prerinse spray valves 

each with multiple spray patterns to be 

$133.24.20

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

35882 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

electrical, physical, and functional (or hydraulic) 

characteristics that affect energy consumption, 

energy efficiency, water consumption, or water 

efficiency. (10 CFR 431.262) 

DOE examined the CPSV industry to 

identify the manufacturers of 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

covered in this NOPR, and determined 

that 72 percent of all CPSV 

manufacturers could be classified as 

small entities according to SBA 

classification guidelines. Although 72 

percent of the market could be 

considered a significant portion of the 

overall industry, DOE believes that 

small manufacturers would not be 

substantially affected by the proposed 

amendments to the test procedure, 

because there would be no significant 

incremental costs to any entity. The cost 

of testing for each small business 

analyzed was less than or equal to 0.01 

percent of revenue for a sample size of 

two commercial prerinse spray valves. 

The current industry standard used for 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

(ASTM Standard F2324–13) requires 

three representative production models 

be selected for performance testing. 

However, the DOE sample size of a 

minimum of two units remains 

unchanged with this proposed rule. 

Therefore, DOE concludes that the cost 

effects accruing from the proposed rule 

would not have a ‘‘significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities,’’ and that the preparation of an 

IRFA is not warranted. DOE will submit 

a certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

DOE seeks comments about whether 

the proposed test procedure 

amendments would have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. See section 

V.E.6 of this NOPR. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of commercial prerinse 

spray valves must certify to DOE that 

their products comply with any 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

commercial prerinse spray valves, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including commercial prerinse spray 

valves. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)). 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 30 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes 

test procedure amendments that it 

expects will be used to develop and 

implement future energy conservation 

standards for commercial prerinse spray 

valves. DOE has determined that this 

rule falls into a class of actions that are 

categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, this proposed rule would 

amend the existing test procedures 

without affecting the amount, quality or 

distribution of energy usage, and, 

therefore, would not result in any 

environmental impacts. Thus, this 

rulemaking is covered by Categorical 

Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, which applies to any 

rulemaking that interprets or amends an 

existing rule without changing the 

environmental effect of that rule. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

proposed rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 35883 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

http://energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this proposed 

rule according to UMRA and its 

statement of policy and determined that 

the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988) that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

this proposed rule under the OMB and 

DOE guidelines and has concluded that 

it is consistent with applicable policies 

in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

This regulatory action to amend the 

test procedure for measuring the energy 

efficiency of commercial prerinse spray 

valves is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed rule incorporates 

testing methods contained in the 

following commercial standards: ASTM 

F2324–13, Standard Test Method for 

Prerinse Spray Valves, sections 6.1–6.9, 

9.1–9.5.3.2, 10.1–10.2.5, 10.3.1–10.3.8, 

11.3.1 (replacing ‘‘nozzles’’ with 

‘‘nozzle’’), and disregarding references 

to the Annex. DOE has evaluated these 

standards and is unable to conclude 

whether they fully comply with the 

requirements of section 32(b) of the 

FEAA, (i.e., that they were developed in 

a manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review). 

DOE will consult with the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the test 

standard published by ASTM, titled, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Prerinse 

Spray Valves,’’ ASTM Standard F2324– 

2013. ASTM Standard F2324–2013 is an 

industry-accepted test procedure that 

measures water flow rate and spray 

force for prerinse spray valves, and is 

applicable to product sold in North 

America. ASTM Standard F2324–2013 

specifies testing conducted in 

accordance with other industry 

accepted test procedures (already 

incorporated by reference). The test 

procedure proposed in this NOPR 

references various sections of ASTM 

Standard F2324–2013 that address test 

setup, instrumentation, test conduct, 

and calculations. ASTM Standard 

F2324–2013 is readily available at 

ASTM’s Web site at www.astm.org/

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

35884 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Standard/standards-andpublications.html. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this document. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Please note that foreign nationals 

participating in the public meeting are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures which require advance 

notice prior to attendance at the public 

meeting. Any foreign national wishing 

to participate in the public meeting 

should advise DOE as soon as possible 

by contacting foreignvisit@ee.doe.gov to 

initiate the necessary procedures. Please 

also note that any person wishing to 

bring a laptop into the Forrestal 

Building will be required to obtain a 

property pass. Visitors should avoid 

bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 

minutes. Persons may also attend the 

public meeting via webinar. 

Because of the REAL ID Act 

implemented by the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), there have 

been recent changes regarding 

identification (ID) requirements for 

individuals wishing to enter Federal 

buildings from specific States and U.S. 

territories. As a result, driver’s licenses 

from the following States or territory 

will not be accepted for building entry, 

and instead, one of the alternate forms 

of ID listed below will be required. 

DHS has determined that regular 

driver’s licenses (and ID cards) from the 

following jurisdictions are not 

acceptable for entry into DOE facilities: 

Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, 

Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, and 

Washington. Acceptable alternate forms 

of Photo-ID include: U.S. Passport or 

Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver’s 

License or Enhanced ID-Card issued by 

the States of Minnesota, New York or 

Washington (Enhanced licenses issued 

by these States are clearly marked 

Enhanced or Enhanced Driver’s 

License); a military ID or other Federal 

government-issued Photo-ID card. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

product.aspx/productid/54. Participants 

are responsible for ensuring that their 

systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statement for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

portable document format (PDF) 

(preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, 

WordPerfect, or text in American 

Standard Code for Information 

Interchange (ASCII) file format, to the 

appropriate address shown in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this document. The request and advance 

copy of statements must be received at 

least one week before the public 

meeting and may be emailed, handdelivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers 

to receive requests and advance copies 

via email. Please include a telephone 

number to enable DOE staff to make a 

follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6306) 

A court reporter will be present to 

record the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the public meeting. After 

the public meeting, interested parties 

may submit further comments on the 

proceedings as well as on any aspect of 

the rulemaking until the end of the 

comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the DOCKET 

section at the beginning of this proposed 

rule. In addition, any person may buy a 

copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule not later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this proposed 

rule. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 35885 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or postal mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or postal mail also will be 

posted to regulations.gov. If you do not 

want your personal contact information 

to be publicly viewable, do not include 

it in your comment or any 

accompanying documents. Instead, 

provide your contact information on a 

cover letter. Include your first and last 

names, email address, telephone 

number, and optional mailing address. 

The cover letter will not be publicly 

viewable as long as it does not include 

any comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

one copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. Definitions Discussed and Proposed 

a. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valve 

DOE seeks comments on its proposal 

to revise the definition of 

‘‘commercial prerinse spray valve’’ 

in this NOPR; see section III.A.1. 

b. Normally–Closed Valve DOE seeks 

comment on its tentative proposal 

to add a definition for ‘‘normallyclosed valve’’ in this NOPR; see 

section III.A.2. 

c. Spray Force 

DOE seeks comments on its proposal 

add the definition of ‘‘spray force’’ 

in this NOPR; see section III.A.3. 

2. DOE seeks comment on the addition 

of the spray force test method; see 

section III.C.1. 

3. Spray Patterns 

DOE seeks comment on whether 

manufacturers should be required 

to test commercial prerinse spray 

valves with multiple spray patterns 

in all spray pattern modes, see 

section III.C.2. 

4. DOE seeks comment on changing the 

flow rate measurement rounding 

requirements from one decimal 

place to two decimal places, see 

section III.D. 

5. DOE seeks comment on the removal 

of 10 CFR 429.51(a)(2)(ii), see 

section III.E. 

6. Small Entities 

DOE seeks comments on its reasoning 

that the proposed test procedures 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of 

small entities; see section IV.B. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2015. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II of Title 

10, Code of Federal Regulations as set 

forth below. 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. In § 429.51, paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 429.51 Commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 

(a) Sampling plan for selection of 

units for testing. (1) The requirements of 

§ 429.11 apply to commercial prerinse 

spray valves; and 

(2) For each basic model of 

commercial prerinse spray valves, a 

sample of sufficient size must be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

35886 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

randomly selected and tested to ensure 

that any represented value of water 

consumption or other measure of water 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

must be greater than or equal to the 

higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; 

n is the number of samples; and 

xi is the ith sample; Or, 

(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.10, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; 

s is the sample standard deviation; 

n is the number of samples; and 

t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95 percent twotailed confidence interval with n-1 

degrees of freedom (from Appendix A of 

this subpart). 

* * * * * 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 4. Section 431.262 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.262 Definitions. 

Basic model means all units of a given 

type of covered product (or class 

thereof) manufactured by one 

manufacturer, having the same primary 

energy source, and which have 

essentially identical electrical, physical, 

and functional (or hydraulic) 

characteristics that affect energy 

consumption, energy efficiency, water 

consumption, or water efficiency. 

Commercial prerinse spray valve 

means a handheld device, containing a 

normally-closed valve, suitable for use 

with commercial dishwashing and ware 

washing equipment for the purpose of 

removing food residue before cleaning 

the items. 

Normally-closed valve means a valve 

that opens when an external force is 

exerted upon it and automatically closes 

when the external force is removed. 

Spray force means the amount of force 

exerted onto the spray disc, measured in 

ounce-force (ozf). 

■ 5. Section 431.263 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.263 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) ASTM Standard F2324–13, 

(‘‘ASTM F2324–13’’), Standard Test 

Method for Prerinse Spray Valves, 

approved June 1, 2013; IBR approved as 

follows, sections: 6.1—6.9, 9.1–9.5.3.2, 

10.1–10.2.5, 10.3.1–10.3.8, and 11.3.1 

(replacing ‘‘nozzles’’ with ‘‘nozzle’’), 

excluding reference to the Annex, IBR 

approved for § 431.264. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 431.264 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.264 Uniform test method to measure 

flow rate and spray force of commercial 

prerinse spray valves. 

(a) Scope. This section provides the 

test procedure to measure the water 

consumption flow rate and spray force 

of a commercial prerinse spray valve. 

(b) Testing and Calculations.—(1) 

Flow rate. Test a sample unit in 

accordance with the requirements of 

sections 6.1 through 6.9 (Apparatus) 

except 6.4 and 6.7, 9.1 through 9.4 

(Preparation of Apparatus), and 10.1 

through 10.2.5 (Procedure), and perform 

calculations in accordance with section 

11.3.1 (Calculation and Report) of 

ASTM F2324–13, (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.263). Disregard any 

references to the Annex. Record flow 

rate measurements at the resolutions of 

the test instrumentation. For the sample 

unit, calculate the mean of the flow rate 

measurements. Round the final value for 

flow rate to two decimal places. 

(2) Spray force. Test each sample unit 

in accordance with the test 

requirements specified in sections 6.2 

and 6.4 through 6.9 (Apparatus), 9.1 

through 9.5.3.2 (Preparation of 

Apparatus), and 10.3.1 through 10.3.8 

(Procedure) of ASTM F2324–13. 

Disregard any references to the Annex. 

Record spray force measurements at the 

resolution of the test instrumentation. 

For each sample unit, calculate the 

mean of the spray force measurements. 

Round the spray force to one decimal 

place. 

(3) Multiple spray patterns. If a 

sample unit has multiple spray patterns, 

for each possible spray pattern: 

(i) Measure both the flow rate and 

spray force according to paragraphs 

(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section 

(including calculating the mean flow 

rate and spray force for each spray 

pattern); and 

(ii) Record the mean flow rate for each 

spray pattern, rounded to two decimal 

places. Record the mean spray force for 

each spray pattern, rounded to one 

decimal place. 

[FR Doc. 2015–15376 Filed 6–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–STD–0006] 

RIN 1904–AD51 

Energy Efficiency Program for 

Consumer Products: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and 

availability of the Framework 

Document. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is initiating this 

rulemaking and data collection process 

to consider amending energy 

conservation standards for fluorescent 

lamp ballasts. To inform interested 

parties and to facilitate this process, 

DOE has prepared a Framework 

Document that details the analytical 

approach and scope of coverage for the 

rulemaking, and identifies several issues 

on which DOE is particularly interested 

in receiving comments. DOE will hold 

a public meeting to discuss and receive 

comments on its planned analytical 

approach and issues it will address in 

this rulemaking proceeding. DOE 

welcomes written comments and 

relevant data from the public on any 

subject within the scope of this 

rulemaking. A copy of the Framework 

Document is available at: http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=110. 

DATES: Comments: DOE will accept 

written comments, data, and 

information regarding the Framework 

Document before and after the public 

meeting, but no later than August 7, 

2015. 

Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting on Friday, July 17, 2015, from 

9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in Washington, 

DC. Additionally, DOE plans to conduct 

the public meeting via webinar. You 

may attend the public meeting via 

webinar, and registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s Web site at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP23JN15.022</GPH> EP23JN15.023</GPH>